Moving back to Dubai after 22 years has been an experience! Back then we didn't have the internet or blogs. Now we do I can jot down my thoughts on daily life, things we come up against, things we enjoy, the multi-national society, the laws, the weather...plus other things in general which catch my attention.

Friday, December 28, 2007

More pointless murders

Reuters

On reflection I suppose it really wasn't a surprise that Benazir Bhutto was murdered. In fact she talked of the danger herself several times recently.

Plus the 'collateral damage' of others killed and injured as a result of the attack on her. And make no mistake, there will be even more deaths in the coming days and weeks as a result of this.

What an appalling comment on where we are as human beings. Tens of thousands of years of evolution and we're mentally still in the Stone Age, brainless, the worst animals on the planet.

Pakistan, India, the USA - it doesn't make any difference which part of the world we're talking about. Find someone you disagree with, you don't like, or even a complete stranger who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and kill them.

Seabee - a few comments, if I may, on your post and on Kyle's comment:

What an appalling comment on where we are as human beings. Tens of thousands of years of evolution and we're mentally still in the Stone Age, brainless, [...]

I am not sure that we have any evidence that stone age homo sapiens engaged in politically motivated assassinations? This is all a bit melodramatic don't you think? It's a tragedy that Benazir Bhutto was murdered but please don't use this as an excuse to blame the whole human race for not being able to maintain the moral standards you think it ought to adhere to. The act was hardly 'brainless'. I am sure a lot of thought and planning went into it. No doubt there was a whole lot of religious justification too, which, although irrational, again was not brainless. This assassination was not the result of some 'failure of evolution' (although, strictly speaking, evolutionary development is not linked in any way to the improvement of human morality) but rather a religious death cult of a minority who are unable or refuse to accommodate themselves to the otherwise moral and cultural enlightenment and development of much of the rest of humanity, including many of their own countrymen.

[...] the worst animals on the planet.

By what criteria? If we have not, as you claim, evolved from our ancestors tens of thousands of years ago, then surely we are just like other animals? What makes killing Benazir Bhutto worse than a male lion killing another male lion's cubs? Again, I think your statement is a bit over the top.

Pakistan, India, the USA - it doesn't make any difference which part of the world we're talking about. Find someone you disagree with, you don't like, or even a complete stranger who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and kill them.

This is a generalisation, which probably does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Actually, unlike in Pakistan and India, political assassination is quite rare in the United States. (I think the last serious attempts to assassinate political leaders in that country were the failed attempts to kill Ronald Reagan and George Wallace decades ago and you need to go back to the 1960s to see successful assassinations of leading political figures.) For the most part in the west, 'if you find someone you disagree with, you don't like...' you vote against them or write a blog or go to a demonstration. This is quite different to Pakistan where there have been repeated (almost weekly) attempts to kill the president of that country and, of course, Benazir Bhutto and no doubt many other lesser known political figures as well. This is a particular problem with the political culture of that country and, of course, religion (more on that below) - not a global malaise, which your post appears to suggest.

Kyle: Religion is supposed to heal but in this day & age, it hurts more due to various misconceptions injected by lunatics out there.

Kyle - I am not sure I agree with you here. What misconceptions in religion are you referring to? I am quite sure that you can find some perfectly sound justification in religious texts to sanction the killing of Benazir Bhutto. No doubt you disagree with such strictures/scriptures (perhaps you are of a different faith or of no faith) but what gives you the right to declare that one particular part or portion of a holy text is misconceived while other sections (presumably those portions that provide a message of healing, etc.) are valid?

If you read religious texts in their entirety (and why would you do otherwise if you believe them to be divinely inspired), religion is supposed to do a lot more than just 'heal'. Perhaps religion itself is the problem and we are better off without it in its entirety? The alternative approach is trying to pick and choose the bits of religion that we like (based on our innate, evolved human morality). But to do this we need to explain away the bits of religious scripture than do not fit in with our current conception of morality? And, crucially, who among us gets to decide which parts apply and which parts don't?

Kyle: I am quite sure that you can find some perfectly sound justification in religious texts to sanction the killing of Benazir Bhutto.

After reading this preface, I'm not even going to dignify you with a response.

Apologies. I should have prefaced that sentence with the words: "If you were a strict literalist adherent of that religion, ". Care to respond now?

Idu: As you claim there's a "whole lot of religious justification" will you bother producing any one of these?

You'll be better able to judge than me, but in the context of the al-Qaeda announcement in connection with the assassination, could not the following verses be used as justification: Qur'an chapter 3, verse 28, or chapter 3, verse 118, or chapter 5, verse 57?

Your brevity is to be applauded but I'm confused. Where have I made a disguised statement advocating 'eye-for-an-eye' retribution?

Here goes:

I’d take a piss on any religion or establishment (including my own) if it ever threw me a curve ball or swung any justification my way in taking a human life.

From this, I infer that among other things you are a pacifist? It follows from your statement above that you would oppose your religion (if you have one) or your nation state if either justified the killing of others in self defense? Fine, I can understand that view, although not necessarily agree with it.

However, unless I am being very dense (which is entirely possible) I do not understand how this has anything to do with my earlier comment on your original comment. To repeat: what gives you the right to declare that one particular part or portion of a holy text is misconceived while other sections (presumably those portions that provide a message of healing, etc.) are valid? Why for example should Exodus, chapter 21, verses 23 to 25 (eye-for-an eye etc.) not apply today to Christians but other parts of the bible, say Luke, chapter 10, verses 25 to 37 (parable of the Good Samaritan) remain good doctrine? Who are you, I or any 'religious expert' to decide that the former is bad religious doctrine but that the latter is good? What happens if we disagree? Why would I be wrong if I thought the 'eye-for-an-eye' doctrine was good religious doctrine (putting aside the fact it is illegal under secular, non-religiously derived law)?

The point I am making is that religion (any religion) is flawed. It is our innate human compassion and morality that should dictate how we treat one another, not religion. It is not that the 'lunatics out there' misconceive religion, rather they use parts of religious teaching, now unacceptable to most modern people, to to justify their actions. Better just to jettison religion in its entirety than to get tied up trying to decide which bits apply and which bits don't and even then not being sure because who after all has the authority to make such decisions.

Now you dig this any which you like it.

I guess I have.

Idu: None of the verses justify the assasination of Bhutto.

From my reading of the verses (translations to be sure) it would appear that Benazir Bhutto's dealings with unbelievers/infidels might be interpreted to be against Islamic law? Al-Qaeda claimed that she was collaborating with the United States - in their view undoubtedly an infidel power.

As you seem well versed in Quranic Literature, will you bother posting the contextual surroundings of each of those verses you have mentioned or any other ones you plan to post.

When were they revealed? What events led to their revelation? How did Mohammed execute the tasks and for what reasons? How have those verses been practiced in different contexts?

I am definitely no Quranic scholar and cannot do as you have asked (this admission will no doubt be fatal to any argument I have - I accept that). But might I ask why such verses cannot be taken on face value? Why do they need to be contextualised and why does the nature of their revelation need to be examined? I am happy to be set straight, but don't the qualifications that you mention mean that you have great latitude to interpret religious scriptures in any way you like if each one needs to be contextualised in some way? Who gets to do the interpretation, what if interpreters disagree, who has the final say? Why is Al-Qaeda's interpretation wrong while your interpretation is right? This is a point I was making in my earlier comment.

"But might I ask why such verses cannot be taken on face value? Why do they need to be contextualised and why does the nature of their revelation need to be examined?"

Such verses cannot be taken on face value because they were revealed in unique situations.

I'll use an example. The Quran, in certain parts, mentions killing the infidels and disbelievers. Now, I can't just go ahead and kill any disbeliever I come across. The verse was revealed following the systematic genocide the Muslim community was facing at the hands of the Arab pagans which forced the Muslim community out of Mecca and into exile confiscating all their property and belongings.

God then allowed the Muslims to regain their property upon their return to Mecca and to kill those who were responsible for the initial torture of the Muslim community. Disbelievers who didn't commit any crimes were excluded.

Another example, Islam requires the amputation of a theif's hand. Now this won't apply to any theif. If a man steals a loaf of bread out of desperation for his poor family, this wont apply to him. Rather, the state will be scrutinised for failing the welfare of its subjects.

You have to see why the person stole in the first place. Was it out of desperation or was it done for some other reason?

There are stuff which don't need any contextual understandings. Values such as charity and being kind are universally accepted.

"don't the qualifications that you mention mean that you have great latitude to interpret religious scriptures in any way you like if each one needs to be contextualised in some way?"

No, not in any way you like. Having said that, scholars do differ on certain parts.

"Who gets to do the interpretation"

Scholars. At law its the judges who interpret the law and the precedent. Likewise, it is those who are qualified who usually do the interpretations and publish texts.

"what if interpreters disagree, who has the final say?"

Scholars may disagree. That is only natural human behaviour. Muslims aren't a monolith. The golden rule is that where multiple arguments are produced by scholars, the council takes a vote and the popular argument is taken.

"Why is Al-Qaeda's interpretation wrong while your interpretation is right?"

Because al-Qaeda isn't really worried about religious merit as people usually think. They're all about political gain and will twist scripture if it means gaining politically.

About Me

We lived in Dubai from 1977 to 1984, visited on a couple of holidays, then moved back again in 2005. We came because we wanted to watch the incredible development as it happened and we moved back to Oz in 2011.
I now blog on Life in Oz and the link is on my last post here.
I welcome comments & debate on the blog, but insults are unnecessary and inappropriate. I will delete any which are libel, racist, obscene, advertising or which are simply to make a point but are completely off-subject. If you want to do that, create your own blog. Oh, and I've decided to add a new category to the delete list because there are too many of them left on blogs - stupid comments.
If you want to use my photos or quote from my posts you may do so - but only if you credit the source and give a link back to my original post.